Lawyers for a millionaire convicted of capital murder took their case to the state's highest court Thursday.John Brooks was convicted of ordering the death of his handyman, Jack Reid, in 2008. Jurors sentenced him to life in prison instead of the death penalty, but his lawyers are now questioning some of the evidence presented at trial.Brooks' lawyers focused their arguments before the state Supreme Court on the confrontation clause, the provision of the law that allows a defendant to question evidence. Attorneys said that during the trial, prosecutors presented 11 documents that contained phone records and business records without a witness, which left the defense at a disadvantage."These records were a big source of evidence for the state, and without these records, the outcome may have been very different," said defense attorney Martin Murphy.Prosecutors said there was no reason to call witnesses in support of the documents and said they were a small part of a compelling case for murder."The direct evidence from witnesses was really overwhelming in this case and did not rely on the records that were introduced, so if there were any error there, it was a harmless error and would not have affected the verdict," said Assistant Attorney General Janice Rundles.But defense attorneys said the documents backed up what they called weak witnesses."The witnesses the state called against him were badly compromised witnesses who lied on the stand," Murphy said. "These records were the main source of evidence the state used to corroborate their testimony."The court took the case under advisement. There was no indication when it would render an opinion.

CONCORD, N.H. —

Lawyers for a millionaire convicted of capital murder took their case to the state's highest court Thursday.

John Brooks was convicted of ordering the death of his handyman, Jack Reid, in 2008. Jurors sentenced him to life in prison instead of the death penalty, but his lawyers are now questioning some of the evidence presented at trial.

Advertisement

Brooks' lawyers focused their arguments before the state Supreme Court on the confrontation clause, the provision of the law that allows a defendant to question evidence. Attorneys said that during the trial, prosecutors presented 11 documents that contained phone records and business records without a witness, which left the defense at a disadvantage.

"These records were a big source of evidence for the state, and without these records, the outcome may have been very different," said defense attorney Martin Murphy.

Prosecutors said there was no reason to call witnesses in support of the documents and said they were a small part of a compelling case for murder.

"The direct evidence from witnesses was really overwhelming in this case and did not rely on the records that were introduced, so if there were any error there, it was a harmless error and would not have affected the verdict," said Assistant Attorney General Janice Rundles.

But defense attorneys said the documents backed up what they called weak witnesses.

"The witnesses the state called against him were badly compromised witnesses who lied on the stand," Murphy said. "These records were the main source of evidence the state used to corroborate their testimony."

The court took the case under advisement. There was no indication when it would render an opinion.